Religion Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was redirected to another page without consultation. If any editor feels the content needs improving, please do so and discuss concerns on this talk page in accordance with Wikipedia policies. (Malikhpur) 09:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malikhpur, I would support moving the article back to "Folk practices in Punjab." This article served in a useful niche documenting practices which do not fall neatly into the three "main" religions. The recent additions we have seen (which only seem to serve towards some kind of chest-puffing contest and add a good bit of OR that none of the sources state, though this has been rectified) would have been just fine being added somewhere like the Religion section in the Punjab region article, and does not warrant entirely reorienting this article away from its unique niche and being made redundant, imo. Sapedder (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sapedder I have no object to your suggestion but the move was made by Learnindology. Please see discussion on my Talkpage Punjabi folk religion (Malikhpur) 16:29,16.30 2021 (UTC)

Keep it a redirect instead of hijacking together with copyvio, misrepresentation of sources, cherrypicking and other policy violations. Sapedder is making up information about Jats not being Hindu and following their own religion when the source says that most scholars classified them as low caste Hindus. Sapedder also removed that Manusmriti shaped the Punjabi folk practices. List is long regarding the recent disruption here. Editorkamran (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the list is long indeed. This is so laughably transparent that I can tell what happened: you saw info you didn't like, got triggered, and alleged it being "made up." Then you checked the sources and to your dismay found the info to reflect the source material, so you flipped and then cried about "copyvio," though the large edit only left a few phrases un-rewritten (and triggered no bot report), which you seized upon and now allege "cherrypicking," though the info spans multiple pages (I'm not sure you know what it means). If what was written did not reflect the source, you would cry foul about that too, even though the version you like has almost nothing to do with the sources attached and is filled with WP:OR.

"keep as a redirect" Yes, "Religion in Punjab" will be redirected to Punjab#Religions (duh), and "Folk practices in Punjab" will be restored as it has been for the last eleven years prior to its actual hijacking in June (which you no doubt knew about having seen the edit history, but you like this version so you've tried to play ignorant.) In fact, the author of this long-established article before it got hijacked is Malikhpur here.

As for Hinduism, Jats being low-caste, and the Manusmriti, they were all present in my edit. Do be advised that old reversions can easily be pulled up, lest you want to make yourself look stupid and lie so blatantly again. Besides these bits, the version you have restored has departed from the sources completely. The source states the the Manusmriti shaped "pan-Indian social-religious customs," not Punjabi folk traditions, do learn to read. "Jats not Hindu" was never stated, stop projecting your own anxieties. Jats came from somewhere and have their own customs as well, they did not fall out of the sky. Learn about how these "impure" low-castes were "shuddhi'ed" into the mainstream by the novel invention of Hindu proselytization in the 1800s, among other events. If Jat history bothers you, I can't help you.

Quoting the sources too accurately in response to another's edit (which is easily remedied) certainly beats making up a timeline about Punjabi Hindu conversion which none of the sources do at all, that is OR. If you or any other editor wants to stroke themselves off with "we iz da oldest," go do it elsewhere. Changing the entire orientation of the page just to add 3-4 lines bigging yourselves up is not acceptable. After some quick tweaks (and some expansion), I will reinstate my edit, which will only illustrate how much unsupported POV infests this version. Sapedder (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malikhpur, reading the discussion it looks like the title "Folk practices in Punjab" was already mutually agreed upon already between you and the other user, before they moved it again unilaterally. I would be the third to support restoring "Folk practices in Punjab" as agreed to prior, so I think that would settle it. I will instate my expanded edit shortly. Sapedder (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been moved after it was established that no such thing as "folk religion in Punjab" exist. Creating "folk practices in Punjab" over a "religion in Punjab" by intentionally ignoring the content in the sources is what article hijacking is. The title 'Religion in the Punjab' is more appropriate and encompasses traditional religious belief and folk practices. Historical facts such as the Punjab being historically Hindu, transitioning to Buddhism, and then back to Hinduism should not be diluted. Sappeder's edits introduced irrelevant content such as the Persian water wheel that have nothing to do with the topic of religion. Sapedder, your inclusion is indeed copyvio, made-up, WP:UNDUE and misinterpretation of sources. Your claim Jats were not Hindus is not supported by mainstream academia[1][2] and is a mere chest-thumping by Khalistani nationalists as pointed out by scholars.[3][4] Editorkamran (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More hysterics. A serviceable "Punjab#Religions" section already exists, that will be the redirect. The mere existence of "folk practices" inspiring fear in you is no grounds to hijack an 11-year-old article without proper consensus, especially when it was just to add 4 lines of Hindu chest-thumping.

The Bhatti, Bhatti+Michon, Nayar, and Snehi sources would all disagree with you that there are no such thing as independent folk practices in Punjab, not to mention myself and Malikhpur. The linked discussion established nothing of the sort, and both parties had agreed on "Folk practices in Punjab," so you are imagining things There is no such "timeline of Hindu conversion" in any of the sources, so this is WP:OR. It's beyond misinterpretation of sources, it departs from them entirely. "Jats were not Hindu" was never stated anywhere, all you can do is create strawmen. It already stated that they were low-caste in the Hindu society they interacted within, so there is nothing to complain about. Jat migration is fundamental to the establishment of jathera and other beliefs in the region.

"you iz Khalistani" is pure projection and nonsense, but revealing. Being threatened by folk traditions that do not fall under any organized religions (whether Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Christian or otherwise) is transparently ideological.

No bot report, did not pass the threshold for copyvio lol (crying copyvio AND made-up? you are quite confused), especially now that the expanded, amended version is ready to go. Spare us these freak-outs if you have no real points beyond hurling panicked allegations to disguise hurt rashtarvadi feelings. Sapedder (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel threatened by a non-existing religion and I don't need a bot to verify copyright violation. Are you telling me that even though such article existed for 11 years it has failed to attract any significant coverage? You are playing a victim and it won't help you in disapproving the points I made above. Editorkamran (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah you're threatened lol. Your copyvio gambit was a flop, and when all else fails, wildly cry "Khalistani" (even though folk practices are independent of Sikhism). Your points "disapprove" themselves, they are all undemonstrated strawmen, and I'm not convinced that you know what cherrypicking or reading comprehension even are. As for "attract significant coverage" (what is this, a news program?) the existing sources are extremely underutilized, and that will be fixed in the upcoming expansion. The point of an encyclopedia is not to "attract coverage," but to document all topics regardless of fame or obscurity (and this topic is adequately noted for a page of its own, regardless of whether or not it threatens your absorptionism). Sapedder (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was moved and modified per my discussion with Malikhpur. That said, any page move must go through WP:RM now. LearnIndology (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]